G.R. NO. 172184 - NESTOR B. DECASA, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds accused Nestor Decasa alias Toto guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Homicide and, in the absence of mitigating or aggravating circumstances, hereby sentences him to an indeterminate penalty of EIGHT YEARS AND ONE DAY TO SEVENTEEN YEARS and FOUR MONTHS. The accused is further ordered to indemnify the heirs of the victim Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos as death indemnity and Twenty Five Thousand (P25,000.00) Pesos in actual damages. [11] Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals. On 26 April 2005, the appellate court promulgated its Decision affirming with modification the assailed RTC Decision. [12] The modification pertains to petitioner's period of imprisonment as provided under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The decretal portion of the appellate court's decision reads: WHEREFORE, the instant Appeal is hereby DISMISSED, and the assailed Decision of the Regional Trial Court, 7 th Judicial Region, Branch 50, Loay, Bohol, in Criminal Case No. 8006 is AFFIRMED with modification as follows: sentencing accused to suffer the indeterminate penalty of Six (6) Years and One (1) Day of Prision Mayor, as minimum, to Fourteen (14) Years Eight (8) Months and One (1) Day of Reclusion Temporal, as maximum. [13] Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration [14] of the Decision of the Court of Appeals but this was denied by the appellate court in its Resolution dated 23 February 2006 [15] for lack of merit. On 20 March 2006, petitioner lodged the instant petition before us on the following grounds: I. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE GUILT OF THE HEREIN PETITIONER OF THE CRIME CHARGED WAS NOT ESTABLISHED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. II. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE GRAVELY ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO OVERCOME BY THEIR EVIDENCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRESUMPTION OF THE PETITIONER'S INNOCENCE. III. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT DESPITE THE PRESENCE OF CLEAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE WHICH BRING FORTH GRAVE DOUBTS AS TO THE VERACITY AND CREDIBILITY OF PROSECUTION'S EVIDENCE, BOTH TESTIMONIAL AND DOCUMENTARY. IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN CONVICTING THE PETITIONER INSPITE AND DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE OF THE PROSECUTION IS UTTERLY INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT. [16] In sum, petitioner enucleates that the Court of Appeals erred in convicting him despite the utter absence of evidence to sustain his conviction beyond reasonable doubt. Petitioner argues that the RTC and the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in giving credence to the testimony of eyewitness Rogelio since there were grave and irreconcilable inconsistencies in the latter's affidavit and court testimony. According to petitioner, when Rogelio executed his affidavit and was subjected to a preliminary examinati